I am with Keith (?) here. I feel that DSLRs are better at high ISO than MFD and I tend to shoot minimum ISO also my DSLRs. For me, MFDB is on tripod, careful manual focus, minimum ISO, medium aperture, MLU and cable release. Otherwise DSLR. But, I rather use DSLR on tripod, manual focus (LV at 11X), minimum ISO, medium aperture, MLU and self timer/cable release.Under those ideal conditions the MFD system gives sharper images. Better images? That is another discussion, but I obviously think MFD has it merits, else I would not use it.

Obviously in many scenarios the shutter speed is a result of a desire to shoot at base ISO (often low in MF) and optimum lens aperture (typically around the f/8 mark), which means even with lots of light, you're going to end up with a slow shutter speed. Even "sunny 16" with an IQ180 and f/8 is only 1/140th of a second.

But surely there are scenarios where it's preferable to compromise a bit on ideal ISO and aperture in order to get the shot with MF, rather than using an alternative format?

I am with Keith (?) here. I feel that DSLRs are better at high ISO than MFD and I tend to shoot minimum ISO also my DSLRs. For me, MFDB is on tripod, careful manual focus, minimum ISO, medium aperture, MLU and cable release. Otherwise DSLR. But, I rather use DSLR on tripod, manual focus (LV at 11X), minimum ISO, medium aperture, MLU and self timer/cable release.Under those ideal conditions the MFD system gives sharper images. Better images? That is another discussion, but I obviously think MFD has it merits, else I would not use it.

Best regardsErik

I'd rate the IQ180 in a totally different league to any of the Canons I've used (7D, 5D II, 5D III, 1D4, 1Dx), even at ISO100.

As an example comparison, the pixel pitch on the IQ180 is pretty close to that of the 1DIV. So for a given focal length, if you need to stop any "action", or compensate for any possible movement or vibration of the camera, you're going to need the same shutter speed on both. I've recently shot with both IQ180 and 1Dx from a helicopter. There is simply no comparison whatsoever between the two. The IQ180 blows the 1Dx out of the water (or I guess, sky, in this case).

Obviously you need good light, but when if it's possible to pull the shot off with the IQ180, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone - given the choice - would use a DSLR.

"MF and high shutter speeds don't mix well" is not the case in my (admittedly, limited) experience.

Just adding that I have a P45+ on a Hasselblad 555ELD, the IQ180 on a technical camera would have a larger advantage. My exposures times seem to vary widely in the 1/4 - 1/250 s range, so I am shooting in a region where mirror and shutter flap may be a problem. The Hasselblad is central shutter, but I have seen shutter induced vibration on my Pentax 67, so I know it can be a problem. Main main DSLR right now is the Sony Alpha 99.

I'd rate the IQ180 in a totally different league to any of the Canons I've used (7D, 5D II, 5D III, 1D4, 1Dx), even at ISO100.

As an example comparison, the pixel pitch on the IQ180 is pretty close to that of the 1DIV. So for a given focal length, if you need to stop any "action", or compensate for any possible movement or vibration of the camera, you're going to need the same shutter speed on both. I've recently shot with both IQ180 and 1Dx from a helicopter. There is simply no comparison whatsoever between the two. The IQ180 blows the 1Dx out of the water (or I guess, sky, in this case).

Obviously you need good light, but when if it's possible to pull the shot off with the IQ180, I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone - given the choice - would use a DSLR.

"MF and high shutter speeds don't mix well" is not the case in my (admittedly, limited) experience.

Just adding that I have a P45+ on a Hasselblad 555ELD, the IQ180 on a technical camera would have a larger advantage. My exposures times seem to vary widely in the 1/4 - 1/250 s range, so I am shooting in a region where mirror and shutter flap may be a problem. The Hasselblad is central shutter, but I have seen shutter induced vibration on my Pentax 67, so I know it can be a problem. Main main DSLR right now is the Sony Alpha 99.

Best regardsErik

Main reason why I let my own 67ll go after about a year; it was beautiful to hold and look at, but even with MU the shutter was the killer. I loved the way it handled Velvia... something about a big Kodak lightbox and transparencies can never be matched on a hot-damned monitor. Just so tactile-looking under one's Schneider lupe!

Downsides? Always used a tripod with the Pentax. It was why I bought it: hoped for best conditions results for stock...

Main reason why I let my own 67ll go after about a year; it was beautiful to hold and look at, but even with MU the shutter was the killer. I loved the way it handled Velvia... something about a big Kodak lightbox and transparencies can never be matched on a hot-damned monitor. Just so tactile-looking under one's Schneider lupe!

Downsides? Always used a tripod with the Pentax. It was why I bought it: hoped for best conditions results for stock...

I replaced my Manfrotto C55 with a Velbon Sherpa Pro and that did help a lot. So tripod matters, obviously.

I have a 67 projector, from Götschman, glorios images. Perhaps I should get a film magazine for the Hassy and shoot some film.

Best regardsErik

My Pentax lived permanently on top of a Gitzo G 410 that I can hardly lift! The two-way tilting head is just as heavy. All the mass and inertia you could wish for - an asistant would have been nice. Or a coolie (no offence intended, for the politically correctly sensitive in the LuLa woodpile).

What the cost of switching to MF digital will be would buy an awful lot of scans. I've yet to see any digital look as nice as Portra film scanned.If I did not have to shoot to pay the bills, my digital stuff would be on ebay and I would be happy to be off the camera/computer merry-go-round.Imagine just having one camera to last you a lifetime, one enlarger to last a lifetime.Stick with the film you know, life will be so much simpler.

What the cost of switching to MF digital will be would buy an awful lot of scans. I've yet to see any digital look as nice as Portra film scanned.If I did not have to shoot to pay the bills, my digital stuff would be on ebay and I would be happy to be off the camera/computer merry-go-round.Imagine just having one camera to last you a lifetime, one enlarger to last a lifetime.Stick with the film you know, life will be so much simpler.

Wow sheet film looks really nice, especially in highlights.I'm surprised that the Phaseone does not do better in the highlights, it looks like all digital does at the top end. Check out the shot of the money and it's silver strip. Compare that with the film of the same. The shot with the bridge in the highlight, the bridge is just not there on the digital. It's always been my major bug with my digital cameras, what happens at the highlight end. Especially white cloud or into the Sun shots, specular reflections etc. Resolution is not the only factor in making images, having more tones is just as important as counting more leaves imho.

From what I am seeing, that is a 70 yo with arthritis, I would say stick with film. My friend is 70 and intelligent, but stick him in front of a computer and try to teach him some photoshop basics and it's a whole lot of pain.

My suggestion would be to sell the blad and to buy a Contax G2 and lenses. Just saying…